2014年外科手术干预疗效的英文Meta分析的方法学和报告质量评价

Methodological and reporting quality assessment of meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in English in 2014

目的对2014年已发表的外科手术干预疗效的Meta分析的方法学和报告质量进行评价。方法计算机检索PubMed和EMbase数据库,搜集2014年发表的所有与外科手术相关的英文Meta分析,采用PRISMA和AMSTAR量表分别评价其报告质量和方法学质量。通过单因素和多因素分析,对相关因素进行评价。结果共纳入197个研究,涵盖10个外科学亚专科手术干预评估的Meta分析。纳入Meta分析的PRISMA和AMSTAR量表平均得分分别为22.2±2.4分与7.8±1.2分,且两量表评分间呈正相关关系(R^2=0.754)。有Meta分析写作经验的第一作者相比于无经验的第一作者的Meta分析的报告质量(P=0.002)和方法学质量(P=0.001)得分更高。Q1区杂志的Meta分析比Q2、Q3区杂志的Meta分析的报告质量和方法学质量均更高(P值均<0.001)。多因素分析结果表明,作者来源地区(非亚洲或亚洲)、第一作者发表经验(有或无过往发表经验)、出版期刊影响因子评级(Q1或Q2、Q3)和预注册(有或无)均为影响报告质量和方法学质量的独立因素。结论 2014年外科手术干预类的Meta分析的报告质量和方法学质量尚不理想,第一作者的发表经验和出版刊物的等级可能是影响报告质量和方法学质量的独立因素。预注册可能是一种能够提高Meta分析质量的有效措施,值得今后的Meta分析作者关注。

Objectives To assess the methodological and reporting quality of surgical meta-analyses published in English in 2014. Methods All meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in 2014 were selected from PubMed and EMbase. The characteristics of these meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological quality were assessed by the PRISMA and AMSTAR, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results A total of 197 meta-analyses covering 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR score （by items） were 22.2~2.4 and 7.8~1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with a R2 of 0.754. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors who had previously published meta-analysis was significantly higher in reporting and methodological quality than those who had not （P〈0.001）. Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these reporting （P〈0.001） and methodological （P〈0.001） quality between studies published in Q 1 ranked journals and （Q2＋Q3） ranked jounals. On multivariate analyses, region of origin （non-Asia vs. Asia）, publishing experience of first authors （ever vs. never）, rank of publishing journals （Q1 vs. Q2＋Q3）, and preregistration （presence vs. absence） were associated with better reporting and methodologic quality, independently. Conclusion The reporting and methodological quality of current surgical meta- analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors＇ experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration may be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analysis, which deserves more attention from future meta-analysis reviewers.